why is there a limit for blocks...why not 3 pitch blocks or 3 amp or whatever

Zer0th said:
I suspect that in order to minimise switching time and [many] other overheads... it isn't a case of 'oh, this newly selected preset uses a flanger, I'll create an instance of a flanger object' but rather that he instantiates all of the allowed instances of all the allowed block types in memory at power on and simply* switches the internal virtual wiring per preset. IOW, volatile memory constraints.
Click to expand...

I have wondered the same thing as the OP, and now I have a very reasonable and sensible answer (confirmed by Cliff, no less). Hooray for the forum!
 
Yes... Cliff has stated as such. If I remember correctly . It was back in firmware 3-5 where he implemented high rez amps when running a single amp block
 
Chris@KatsuKuriMedia said:
i like to think of it as Normal resolution, because you really can't tell the difference unless you are searching for it.
Click to expand...


Exactly! If you were to do a blind comparison, you probably won't hear the difference. But when you know there is a technical difference, all of a sudden you think you hear it. This is a common phenomenon regarding the human brain. It can play tricks on you with sound comparisons. You can't say you absolutely can hear the difference between two of anything unless you can consistently select between the two in a blind test.
 
Axeman said:
Exactly! If you were to do a blind comparison, you probably won't hear the difference. But when you know there is a technical difference, all of a sudden you think you hear it. This is a common phenomenon regarding the human brain. It can play tricks on you with sound comparisons. You can't say you absolutely can hear the difference between two of anything unless you can consistently select between the two in a blind test.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can hear a difference. I was literally waiting for Cliff to decide to increase the resolution. As soon as he did so I could hear it. Every time? No, not. But I bet I would average 70% accuracy or better if you did a blind test in a pristine listening environment, after de-waxing ears, 9 hours of rest, vegetarian food, no GMO's & so on. Why do I believe this? Because Cliff would never cut so much into the processing capacity by doubling the resolution if he, and I, and numerous people at Fractal & beta testers, didn't think it was probable that many of us could hear it. Hell, electric guutar harmonics can go, maybe sometimes from below, to way friggin up past the upper boundry of the audible spectrum and one has to think that wave motions with audible frequencies are also pushed by the inaudible ones. I was ecstatic when Cliff doubled the resolution. Ask him if he thinks we should go back.

On the matter of the original thread question, you build in limitations because processes have "potential" behavior which is to say variation in resource consumption. With amp blocks being the most potentially processor heavy, running more than two could have a wide range of potential load, minimal, or one such block could gobble up a lot of processor capacity. Adding a third or fourth may mean coding protective mechanisms (such as stipulating a forced relationship amongst certain other "processor or memory expensive" blocks - whereas if you limit to two amp blocks for eg there is little risk of crashing, but with 3 there is suddenly more significant chance, etc.

I have no idea in other words..
 
jesussaddle said:
Because Cliff would never cut so much into the processing capacity by doubling the resolution if he, and I, and numerous people at Fractal & beta testers, didn't think it was probable that many of us could hear it.
Click to expand...

Cliff: "I don't hear a difference either but some claim they can." (http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-f...i-res-vs-2-amp-blocks-low-res.html#post826852)

On the matter of the original thread question
Click to expand...

Cliff already answered this one, see above.
 
knoll said:
That would be great. Even possibility to switch existing drive blocks to stereo mode would be great.
Click to expand...

But you'd still be sending the signal into a mono input amp block, so it really wouldn't matter if you had a stereo mode drive unless you were using it as an additive effect after the amp block.
 
Zer0th said:
I'll take a shot at this with some wild speculation...

I suspect that in order to minimise switching time and [many] other overheads... it isn't a case of 'oh, this newly selected preset uses a flanger, I'll create an instance of a flanger object' but rather that he instantiates all of the allowed instances of all the allowed block types in memory at power on and simply* switches the internal virtual wiring per preset. IOW, volatile memory constraints.

Well, that's my guess anyway.

[*] relatively simple... no dynamic destruction/creation of blocks required or memory management on a change of preset
Click to expand...

:) .. Spoken like a programmer!
 
Smilzo said:
I would like to see 4 istances for drive block... drive is the key in many excelent guitar tone...
Click to expand...
You have four distinct permutations of drive blocks in any one patch if you use two blocks, both with X/Y settings on the blocks.
 
jesussaddle said:
...I bet I would average 70% accuracy or better if you did a blind test in a pristine listening environment, after de-waxing ears, 9 hours of rest, vegetarian food, no GMO's & so on. Why do I believe this? Because Cliff would never cut so much into the processing capacity by doubling the resolution if he, and I, and numerous people at Fractal & beta testers, didn't think it was probable that many of us could hear it.
Click to expand...
He doubled the cab resolution so you can fit two single-resolution cabinets into one stereo block.
 
I haven't heard or created a dual-amp patch that sounded remarkable. Seems more standard approaches can get you there easier.
 
Semih Yanyali said:
u are mostly true about the amp number but x/y still has a lag, and sound drop when u switch...

but there are times i need more of some effect blocks...why is this not possible?
Click to expand...

Since Axe-Fx II FW 10.05 & MFC-101 FW 2.16 I no longer have any latency, lag or sound drop when I switch AMP X/Y. I use my MFC-101 setup so I use the same IA switch to switch between SCENE 1 (AMP 1 X = Distortion) & SCENE 2 (AMP 1 Y = Clean). Now I keep switching too early because I was always used to having to switch about an 8th note early, so my first note wasn't cut off. AMP X/Y now switches as fast as real amp channels switch. I compared it to my other guitarist's Marshall JCM 2000 DSL100.

Reference: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/mfc-discussion/69967-using-same-ia-switch-reveal-mode-two-scenes.html
 
Old thread I know but:

On my AXE FXII and MFC-101 I use a single patch and scene for a big clean chorused delayed sound, then expression pedal down to a grinding crunch with reverb, perfect blend from one to the other. I can only do this with 2 amp blocks, impossible with X/Y switching on the AX8

Unless someone can tell me how???
 
ALaz502 said:
The amp block issue is obvious. One entire core is dedicated to the amp simulation. When you have one amp block going, the whole cpu is utilized for hi resolution. When you have two amp blocks, only the one core is still used but the models default to lo resolution
Click to expand...

Wait. Is this still true? @FractalAudio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom